Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Explicit decapitations and Disney squirrels

If movies and games could be everything, genres wouldn't exist. I'm getting an increasing feeling that BG3 doesn't know what it wants to be and who it's made for.

The reveal trailer introduced us into gruesome body horror which set the mood. And it was great! It was very BG, it was dark and mature as it should be.

Then we were introduced to the gameplay which was partly very tongue in cheek and cartoony in style. Exaggerated animations with very pronounced VFX, cartoony shoving left and right, surreal poison and acid pools, explosions everywhere. Very gamey stuff detached from realism or being grounded like many grown-up RPG's often are. And the other part is the story with dark themes, excellent voice acting and generally a very realistic feeling outside of combat. Why does combat feel like a different game? E.g. Dark Souls doesn't turn into Super Mario when combat starts but remains consistent instead.

Now we have a very explicit decapitation scene and a severed head. At the same time we have cutesy talking Disney squirrels bouncing around. All animals speak like in a Disney cartoon, like humans, eloquent and intelligent with personalities. Combining these two genres would never work in film. (Unless it's some masterfully directed next level Tarantino-esque experimental with a more niche audience. But BG3 isn't niche by any stretch.) So why would it work in a game that has mature themes and is very cinematic with photorealistic visual style? On a personal level, I find the talking animals very cringe and out of place and would have made them speak in a much more primitive and cryptic way. But I'm curious to hear how others feel and if you can ignore the clash of styles Larian is presenting here?

This is not to be confused with humor or having light-hearted or even silly scenes in a dark or mature context. Volo is a good example of a character who is a more light-hearted and silly entity in mature storytelling. He walks the fine line of what fits with his ice pick shenanigans, but he doesn't skip genres as blatantly as the squirrels do. The hysterical laughing scene is an example of humor that fits perfectly. The party banter is often funny and lights up the mood in the darkest dungeons, but is also completely within the characters.

Are Larian too fixed in their own distinctive whacky and fun style to be able to tell when they cross the line in BG3? Can gameplay and storytelling be from two different games?

I think I disagree what original BGs were - I didn't think the original trailer fit BG IP at all.

That said I do agree with the sentiment. D:OS1 was silly fun all throughout - nonsensical plot, characters who were more about puns then anything else, riddiculus combat. Audience wanted something more "dark" and "mature", so Larian obliged. D:OS2 was a silly fun with a lot of macabre and dark twisted stuff. I didn't like it.

BG3 seems even darker, but silly Larian DNA is still underneath. I am also not a fan of what Larian considers "mature" content - from liberal cursing, to explicite sex scenes, to some really "yuck" moments. I think Tarantino comparison is very apt, with the difference that Tarantino understands very well camp, and explotation. I am not exactly sure if Larian's humor flyes over my head, or if it is them who don't get it.

Welcome to Larian.
They always have a mix of a dark setting, crazy characters and adding funny stuff everywhere. If you think that this funny stuff is actually funny depends on your personal taste. They just add crazy stuff everywhere so you find at least some of it and they hope you like more than half of it. Compared to the previous games it is already more serious and I like this.

If this was a movie, think of it as a mix of Alien (dark horror setting), Deadpool/suicide squad (lots of psychos and lots of action, takes nothing too serious), a disney cartoon and some realism (some things characters do or say actually makes sense). A little bit of everything. After slaughtering some monsters you sing a happy song and then you blow up the whole place with oil barrels.

In some sense it fits BG1+2 very well.
Those game were quite dark in general but they also had many crazy stuff (Minsc, Tiax, Noober, A quest about a guy who turned into a chicken, . . .).

In some sense it is a true BG game.
Its 20 years later and another company, so the balance between dark and silly is different.

This is the point exactly. You just outlined what could be best described as incoherent mess. It will be guaranteed to disappoint players. Like I personally can't stand the Disney cartoon animals and the silly pushing and shoving after the first laugh, because I was sold a dark mature RPG with a realistic fantasy style. How does this mess of styles and genres make BG3 good is my concern.

This is the reason why games and films have directors, so things don't fall apart.

I'm trying not to think about the original games too much because that was 20 years ago and more is expected and less is forgiven in 2021. And the silly things in the original games were few and far between.

I disagree.

I love everything that is criticized here, it's the cynicism and bitter jollyness that I enjoy so much.

Give me the squirrels and the darkness all at once, this is what I like.

In a world where I have seriously considered taking a very small drill bit to my skull to relieve the pressure brought on by my constant migraines, while friends and family wonder how I can actually crack some pretty good jokes about the situation, I disagree. I have had to walk away from games that I genuinely enjoyed, like Tera, because the endgame was far too flashy for me to cope with. Yet, if not for games like this one, I doubt I'd still be around. While I haven't personally witnessed any decapitations in the real world, I have seen some pretty graphic things, been the cause of some of them, and have had my cat "helping" me make my bed on laundry day. The take away, quite simply, is that there are truly gruesome and truly hilarious things going on every day in the world around us, why should it be any different in a game? While the extremes of gruesome and ridiculous are a bit wider in games than in the real world, I don't see any problem with both existing at the same time, maybe even in the same situation.

I mean, I absolutely adore Alfira's music video, and it doesn't feel "out of place" even considering the seriousness of our situation in game. It's not like it's the first example of such, after all, Leliana had a music video in DA O, and Lohse's song is very popular as well. There may even be other examples that I haven't experienced, because I haven't played every game out there, but this lightness is a fair balance to dark tales.

Lighter and darker content existing in the same game is a bit different from skipping genres though.

Alfira's music video is a good example of lighter content that would stay in a given genre and provide a much needed balance for the darker things, if it wasn't for the Disney squirrels that just turn the whole thing into a bit of a joke for me.

The BG saga was not all dark and mature as you portray it. It had some very silly, genre skipping moments too. Remember the woodsman making dark cavern jokes in BG1? It was a reference to, ahem, adult movies actor.

I don't think Larian has this approach - it seems to me like Larian encourages unrequested, and unexpected input from their devs. They pride themselves on wacky things they staff puts in. I would prefer for the game to be more curated - I like RPGs as a story telling medium, and BG3 is greatly lacking in that regard.

Is it bad, per say? People seem to enjoy that - you never know what's going to happen aroudn the corner etc. I find it unengaging. Facade falls apart a bit too easily. I want to buy in into the story, but the game doesn't allow for that. I think it tries to be entertaining, and it will depend on the player if they like it or not. I always admired RPGs for their slow-burning, throughful construction and worldbuilding, so BG3 ususally annoys and frustrates me. I would say it lacks "heart". A central idea, or theme that would tie all things together. I think it will be a curious game, but I doubt it will stand the test of time, once novelty wears off. Like with push it is entertaining to see at E3, but becomes old quickly. Some games get better the more you play, some don't. Larian's titles tend to be the latter.

Maybe this is why I also care enough to make a post about it. BG1&2 did stand the test of time very well and I want BG3 to succeed in the same way.

I remember literally nothing about DOS1 or 2 story, except that everyone was some kind of a sourcerer, even though I've completed the first and played at least 50% of the second. I only remember the gameplay with the surfaces and explosions and don't feel any kind of pull to ever go back to those games for either the story or the gameplay. BG1&2 story still stirs something in me. To this day I feel impressed by those games, and still sometimes replay them. It would suck if BG3 would only be remembered a short time for exploding barrels, funny shoves and talking squirrels rather than the story.

Not sure if i understand this topic corectly ...
But if you are voting for making animals little simplier ... then +1

As someone who's actually replaying the BG series right now, I think both games are pretty campy. And there's humorous tones inserted into all sorts of other NPCs. BG2 is slightly darker than BG1 (which I would say BG3 is closer in feel to). But still, any thing that comes out of Jan's mouth is wackier the BG3 companions.

Really, I think the reason why people feel such a distinction between BG1/2 and BG3 is the speech pattern used. BG2, despite having wacky moments, uses "Fantasy English" in their speech. So even though a storekeep maybe making a joke, there's a lot of "Alas" and "Ay"s that keep it in the genre of conventional fantasy. Whereas, BG3 in the most cases much closer to modern day people (especially with the VA) - so when it's a joke, I can see how it can really take you out of it.

And I think not having voice acting in many of these jokey moments help too. For example, one of my favorite "fun" interactions from BG2 is this one:


Reading that, you can still keep the tone of the world in your heads, despite the Spectator speaking like a guy doing a night shift at a 7-eleven. With voice acting though, I feel like that illusion will shatter.

@Topgoon - all agree. I would add that silly content in BG1&2 is a bit more out of the way. I don't remember stuff like that popping during those games "serious" moments - like the sequence in the Spellhold. Witcher3 sure had three farting trolls named and voiced by streamers, but it's generally not what people think of when they think Witcher3 story content. BG3 with it's compact structure puts those things side by side. One second you will stop druid from murdering a child, and then fight a squirrel right after that.

I think the best only genre descriptor for Baldur's Gate is probably "pastiche." Or at least, if you want a ready film analog for what the earlier games represented, the best fit would probably be Star Wars (the Motion Picture I mean, not the subsequent Franchise or what Star Wars came to mean post TESB.) Like it was just pulling from everywhere, and sort of a big giant blender. Held together as something coherent and pretty genius, mainly thanks to the brilliant work of Williams and McQuarrie and the contributions of many others beyond the Director (like mainly the Editors, and Acting troupe and the various teams.) An unlikely win there, and hard to replicate the next time around. Or pretty fraught at that point, once expectations are all high and it begins going more Gravity than Levity. BG is a bit like that, well more than a bit, it's practically the only serviceable analogy I can think of hehe.

Like I can understand the basic criticism that it's a game in search of consistent tone. Tone is a pretty good word too, since it has the etymological association from the Greek with the stretching and pulling, trying to get the strings just taught enough to produce the right sound.

I think in terms of story it pretty much delivers in the way that BG did. Half Excalibur, Half Monty Python and the Holy Grail basically. Leaning harder one direction or the other at various points. If we time warped to blockbuster genre sections of old, it would fit squarely in that row called "Adventure" or perhaps "Epic" where they'd toss all the old double VHS sets lol. Adventure was a bit of a catch all. Certainly not like action or horror or comedy etc, but a bit of a mixed bag. BG humor always felt pretty referential in that way, like it might not carry or stand on its own two legs and needs a bit of support. A lot of Adventure films were like that. Conan and Willow and Robin Hood Prince of Thieves all come to mind, as indulging the camp element pretty hard, while still not totally giving up the Epic ghost.

What BG had I think, more than anything was, just a sense of scale, and overall sweep. Like it was large enough and sprawling enough to juggle a lot of different mirrors. I think as the games become more and more cinematic these days that sensibility gets rather harder to maintain without hiccups. We can have Epic like Homer when the meter is just right, or sort of camp and bawdy at times while still being beautiful like Euripides and Apuleius, but hard to do everything at once at the same time. It's a really tall order.

That's story though, which is my primary interest in this game. The mechanics of the gameplay are rather less impressive to me and sort of something I'm suffering through right now just to get at the story elements I enjoy. I wish the gameplay was a bit less cartoonish sometimes or just more streamlined for my sense of comfort, just so it would hold together a bit better as a complete experience. I thought BG1/2 were mechanically pretty rad for the times and able to make use of the best in show staying pretty current for what was on offer in the late 90s. The gameplay here feels sort of more like a console throwback to me. Like the systems in use for that don't exactly rival the best of the best I've seen elsewhere for a cinematic presentation style of gameplay according to the latest and greatest in gameplay innovation. I wish I could just switch to a driving cam or something more traditional and less offbeat, just so I wouldn't have to deal with those gameplay frustrations quite as much here. I think they have a pretty good hook in with the intro. Whether its a perfect fit for what follows immediately after is harder to say. There are definitely some non sequiturs, no doubt hehe. But I still hope they can pull it off somehow by the time all's said and done.

ctrl+F "magic space hamster"
0 results found

This is one of the aspects, not the VA, but the medieval dialogue that is not consistent throughout. I think Pathfinder WotR is even worse in terms of modern sound distracting VAs (Woljif and Lann). BG3 is more distracting in the written dialogue itself.

Other reasons are: complete lack of artistic direction in cinematics, poor writing with companions that don't behave as they are about to die from the tadpole (with exception of Lae'zel), cartoony hag and Raphael, the uninspiring Absolute thematic, a comedian vampire spawn, combat without grit/decapitations/dismemberment.

It is clear that Larian lacks a director (and writers) with vision for mature dark fantasy. They have been listening to feedback but there is only so much you can do when it is not your essence.

The original series took itself very seriously, despite the occasional humor. The tone was very different.

Edit: Also agree that the way they implemented speaking to animals is completely childish.

I for one am glad that voice acting isn't stuck in the "ye old English" with all British accents for everyone all the time in all RPGs that even hint at medieval settings anymore. "realistic" or not, people talk differently. Like it or not, the medieval setting isn't just for western European sounding people. It's nice to hear some variety. that said, Larian has always done the silly with the serious, that's just them.

I agree with you that there are tonal issues - in particularly the WTFs/yucks moments (i.e. the brain extraction and what the Owlbear cub's actions after a particular fight), but I honestly didn't feel like too much stood out from a humor standpoint.

I have close to 300 hours in BG3 EA but I've never run into the squirrel fight, even after 2 playthroughs as a druid. I'm guessing it's an animal I can talk to in the Grove? I honestly wouldn't say that is shoved in your face, but I might be an exception when it comes to not talking to animals (I mainly remember to do it for Scratch).


Spellhold. Ugh. Didn't have good memories of it from before, and having just replayed it I can firmly say it's my least favorite part of my replay for sure. Don't want to derail the thread, but it's basically all the tropes I don't like in an RPG/Narrative put into one location. In terms of what what we're talking about - I don't know, there are some wacky lines inserted into somewhat serious moments there too, like this:

This is supposed to be a tense moment in the game (especially if you're playing for the 1st time), and lines like this definitely feels off. IMO it's written in a way that seems to want to be funny, but doesn't actually get there.

I wouldn't call that a funny line, especially considering the context of Spellhold.

Comparing to BG3, where it never really establishes s a serious tone suggested in the introduction.

Spellhold has Tiax in it, and he doesn't have more characterization than "comic relief".

Wacky zany lolrandom comic relief?

To be honest I think trying to go beyond "the originals and BG3 both have seriousness and jokeyness but still ends up feeling different" is an excercise in futility. It just ends up feeling like you're trying too hard to cone up with intellectualist-sounding reasons to lend authority to what in the end is just a difference in opinion.

Personally, I liked the tonality of the originals more than I like BG3. But i also like BG3 a lot more than I liked he tone of the two latest Divinity games, and think it is more like the original BG games than the D:OS games were. So I still think it's an improvement in that regard.

People will enjoy different balances between seriousness and comedy. Maybe BG3 just has a humour that doesn't suit me as much. Maybe they're just laying it on too thick for my taste. Maybe I've just lived long enough that I've grown tired of the same old nonsense wacky humour.

As Barman said. You either die laughing, or live long enough to stop chuckling



That's because they're highly scientific space hamsters, thank you



That's definitely supposed to be a humorous line.

In a mage with PTSD/Schizophrenia is completely within context and tone of the area. It may convey humor, but in reality is actually sad underneath.

I'm definitely on team down-with-the-inconsistencies. The silliness of the squirrels? If you were playing around the table, and you told the DM you cast speak with animals to ask the squirrel what's up, and you got those responses, your DM just did a damn fine bit of DMing.

Alfira as others mentioned is a great example. This stuff brings texture. I'd be disappointed in a CRPG that didn't have some silliness and texture and moments that are less about the story than a kind nod from the story-makers saying "we thought you'd enjoy this."

You're 100% free not to enjoy it. Once you've talked to all the squirrels and cows and whatnot, if that's not for you, now you know, don't bother with them in the future. For me, I think it's a really nice touch, it makes it feel like real D&D when people aren't being too serious about.

A story can't sustain a constant level of rising tension. In other words, it can't go up like a slope. Rather, the tension has to increase like a staircase, one step at a time, then give a little breathing room before going up again. Otherwise, it all becomes overwhelming.

The light moments are little places to relax. Sure, the squirrels are silly, but the bard they're listening to is struggling to write a song about her teacher, who was slaughtered by gnolls.

Anyway, I guess I'm saying it's all a balance in storytelling, and I don't think they're doing a bad job at all. I like that the game isn't afraid to go dark, and I appreciate that the game remembers there's a bit of light from time to time, too.

If you think about it, no matter how stupid conversations with animals are (although they do not differ much from most "funny" moments in older games), it is much harder to come across them than it used to be.
Just don't use animal talk, which most classes don't have access to anyway.
However, knowing Larian, chats with animals are likely to be both the funniest and the most depressing scenes.

The tone of the area is inconsistent. Spellhold is supposed to be an asylum and prison for mages, yet Tiax is parody character. A gnome with illusions of grandeour, never treated seriously by writers in BG1, and BG2 follows on that. Considering Dradeel was a mix of serious and humor in BG1 (his cookbook recipes), interpretations may differ as well.

How come?

The whole theme of the area is insanity and boderline madness which encompasses delusion of grandeur/mania (Tiax), paranoia/PTSD and schizophrenia (Dradeel with his disconnected train of thought and speech). I think it is quite explicit as you go from cell to cell, the different facets of each character and that all of them have madness in common. All conveyed in masterful voice acting with clear variation of prosodia from sentence to sentence. Moreover, just notice the underlying eerie music that establishes the depressing tone. I think it is quite brilliant honestly:

And If you think it is open to interpretation, Irenicus spells out for you

explicitly :

Because there is nothing more to his characterization. If you had him in the party in BG1, he gets treated as comic relief. In BG2 there is even less. A character that is suffering from mental ilness shouldn't be portrayed as only that if they are to have any depth.

It is pretty clear from the video that Tiax is as insane as all others cell mates. All of them have similar lines with different facets of madness. The tone is preserved through music and Irenicus narration, no inconsistence at all.

We all know how Bioware didn't have time to flesh out all NPCs in BG1.

Not an excuse. There is nothing in the main plot that required Tiax to be put into Spellhold. And yet there he is, placed by the writers on purpose.

Tiax? What about Minsc? A whole companion character that is just a huge immersion breaking comic relief. And they put him right into your face in BG2 prologue so you won't miss the cringy small giant space hamster nonsense.

Yeah, sometimes I think I may have played a different game when some of u guys talk about how gritty and serious the original saga was. You mean with the popcultural easter eggs with gay porn stars and stuff, yeah very dark fantasy. Not buying it.

Both the original saga and the Forgotten Realms setting in general is filled with silly humor.

Times have changed and games have evolved a lot in 20 years. I don't think you can directly compare the original games to BG3.

In the original games many silly things leave room for interpretation or can more easily be forgiven for being cringe because the whole thing looks much more like a game with crude pixel graphics and a very limited top down camera. But when silly things are rendered in photorealistic 3D close-ups with full voice acting in BG3 it's much more in your face.

I just wish the direction of BG3 was tighter. It's a bit all over the place with different teams doing whatever they like rather than being directed towards one vision and stylistic choice.

If there's too much silly and goofy in gameplay or writing the main plot, which is actually quite dark, will lose it's impact because everything will just feel like ha-ha. This happened to me in Divinity, I just didn't care about the story because the gameplay was what it was. You have to be very subtle with the lighter tones and humor when you're telling a story like BG3. Disney cartoon characters or combat is a no-go. For me anyway, I need to stay immersed and these pull me out of it.

I agree, but that's just Larian DNA. That 'tighter direction' and 'stop being THAT silly' wishes of yours are in direct conflict with how Larian seems (from the limited sources we have) to work internally.

I don't think you can please people. I remember about 2-3 months ago reading the topic that the game is too dark and not enough (for lack of an idea for a better definition) "fun"

This is especially disturbing when it's optional content that needs to go because it "breaks my immersion"...

My personal impression is that there is something going on which I nowadays call "the heavymetalization of games". Everything has to be dark and "mature" (as if housework was NOT a mature work), with the claim that something is "mature" only meaning "mature = dark, brutal, cynism, no colours, murder, dirt, blood fountains, violence, and especially violence". Nobody is actually interested in the fact that washing dishes is a "mature" work.

What "mature" here means is an highly idealizd form of "what people believe is mature".
Dishwashing and dirty diapers is not a part of this highly idealized form of the term "mature".
Cleaning up after someone had been vomiting after drinking too much isn't considered "mature" as well.
Bringing the own family member into hospital after a severe injury after curring trees' branches isn't considered as "mature" as well.
Trying to help the own child after it has been bullied isn't considered "mature" as well.
Trying to help the own grandfather or grandmother after he or she has been diagnosed with Parkinson or even with Dementia isn't considered as "mature" as well.
Researching where the own grand-cousin died in the last war and where he might be buried is not considered "mature" as well.

But rolling heads are.

See the gap between both ? Between Reality and the idealized version of "maturity" ?

REAL "mature" problems do NEVER appear in games. NEVER.
Except for Divinity 1, because it had dish-washing.
Over which a LOT of people moaned.

What was so immersion breaking about him? He seemed to react to his surrounding in an appropriate manner, and knowing nothing about DnD, I always assumed Boo to be a normal hamster, whom simple-minded Minsc imagines to be something more. The closes thing to immersion breaking I can think of, are things characters say when you click on them - "Yes, oh omnipresent authority figure?" - no doubt a left over of RTS genre, and not the best fit for BGs. And definitely there were things I couldn't stand - like the taking sword.

Lightharted yes, but especially BG2 didn't feel like it was taking piss so often, as BG3 does. Crude and clumsy at times, yes.

Using gaming analogy BG1&2 remind me more of the original Mafia - clumsy and unpolished, with some really bad references and jokes, generally lighthearted but with genuine attempt to tell a good gangster story. BG3 feels more like Saints Row to me - just a whole lot of snark and piss taking.


Never played BG1 with anyone else then "BG2 starting party", so I am rather unfamiliar in Tiax. I do remember him sticking out in the Spellhold. So it comes down to: BG1&2 was also bad at times.

What is "optional content" exactly? I don't remember, any "Wild Wasteland" perk, that filters stuff out.

What I find funny about Minsc is that getting him out of the cage is basically about getting him angry enough to bend the bars. And yet the guy had a frontline view on the main character being tortured by Irenicus, and somehow this didn't make him angry at all.

It really feels like you jumped in here with an axe to grind and a rant you wanted to deliver, regardless of whether it was really related or only tangentially parallel to the thread...

This has been a discussion about seriousness vs silliness, and the mixed tone of the game's delivery...

This is a game whose main plot inherently follows themes of violation, trauma, loss of control, loss of personal privacy and loss of self, and how different people deal with and cope with those things, and what they might do, or sacrifice, to regain those things, versus the prospect of giving in and surrendering, and the promise of power for doing so. The game naturally needs lighter tones here and there to stop it getting too heavy, too consistently, but too much levity and silliness will very easily rob the game of any emotional investment or impact the exploration of these themes might have. It's very valid concern.

==


Er... I don't ever recall seeing any threads about the game being too dark, except for one thread by one particular poster who was squicked by some of the grosser elements.

What story beats are tied to talking to squirrels? Is this, instead of not LRing enough, why I'm not getting all my tadpole dreams in Act 1? I don't recall that being something I have to do to advance the story, can you point me to something somewhere that demonstrates otherwise?

The fact that he is a simple-minded rashemi ranger who talks about a "Miniature Giant Space Hamster". Not just a magical or planar hamster, that would be just silly and cringy, but a miniature giant hamster from space would only make sense if Minsc was somehow related to Spelljammer setting and space stuff, not a simple Rashemi ranger.

Fun fact: the BG games actually takes place in the Spelljammer and/or Planescape settings. That's why there are spelljammers and tiefling Doomguards from Sigil in the game.

But no, Boo is actually only ever referred to as a Miniature Giant Space Hamster by Minsc's bio page, as far as I remember.

Minsc also had brain trauma.

If your image of BG2 is a light hearted fantasy filled with silly humor, we definitely did not play the same game. For a game that came 15 years before Witcher 3 and GoT, I would say it is very dark. The Spellhold sequence that many people are criticizing is specially dark and masterfully delivered as I posted in the video last page.

Yet, 20 years later im BG3 we have an evil vampire spawn making jokes every sentence about blood drops, while he has an impeding fatal doom.

We should remove Astarion's sense of humor and give him a miniature giant space hamster instead. Now, the tone is perfect and dark.

If Astarion was the only problem, just refer to the other ongoing topics for many other issues with tone and writing.

I mean that would definitely be an improvement. Hamster made Commander Shepard's cabin brighter. It would make the camp brighter. Astarion even after getting killed, just lies in the camp spoiling the fun.

A magic space hamster is worse than anything in BG3. Those "issues" about tone are fictional.

Certainly. No wonder there are no complaints about them.

I could find complaints on this forum about everything in the game (literally everything). It does not mean every complaint is correct.

So any criticism aimed at, for example, the conflict in the grove is irrelevant because as far as I know it is skippable? If it is in the game, it's that games content. It either adds or detracts from the experience. If I don't find enjoyment in interacting with characters, in a genre where the main appeal is interacting with characters, then I have a problem with the game. It's an RPG. Of course I will talk to anyone I can, at least on the first playthrough.

Nonsense. I'm no D&D lore aficionado but always assumed that Boo is not actually a hamster from space as it's fairly obvious from the outset that Minsc is mentally incapacitated. So, in a sense, it's in keeping with Minsc's character to have such delusional fantasies. In some respects it quite endearing but also fundamentally sad.

The previous games certainly had their wacky or funny moments but I never felt anything but immersed in the game world. The game worlds in BG1 & 2 felt alive and believable, not a bizarre cramped theme park where everything is on your door step and you can simply jump into magical way portals conveniently and liberally littered around the map. The combat didn't involve an endless scramble for higher ground or Super Mario style leaps and the story was a little more concise, clear and not riven with quite so many plot holes. I feel like everything reminds you this is a video game. Out of sheer curiosity I replayed BG1 recently and sure it is flawed and dated but it still holds up remarkably well and it wasn't long before I was lost in its charms once again.

In BG3 everything is exceptional, from the Michael Bay-like prologue where we find ourselves hurtling through the realms on a flaming Mindlfayer ship being hunted by Githyanki and dragons to the OTT backstories of all the Origins companions, bar Lae'Zel. I liken the tone and writing of BG3 to contemporary Marvel/Star Wars films; it is hard to describe succinctly but I always think back to that awful cringey opening scene of The Last Jedi where Poe Dameron is alone in his X-Wing facing off against a Star Destroyer (or whatever ship it is). The dialogue Is terrible and tries too hard to be funny.

In my opinion BG3 suffers for a lack of coherency and immersion; I appreciate I might be in a minority but nevertheless it is how I feel. Probably went off topic a little bit there so I apologise.

Exactly. Some people just have problems understanding things in context, or are simply tone-deaf. There is only so much you can do.

Quite ironic that you call posters tone-deaf for simply disagreeing with you, because Minsc never outgrows his characterization from BG1, where his simple mind get treated the same as Khalid's anxiety or Tiax's delusions - something to turn into a joke. Oh, but as an added bonus in BG2 Boo squeaks in response to Minsc in dialogues. Unsurprising, since this character concept was originally created by a teenager:
http://blog.beamdog.com/2017/12/six-siders-space-hamsters.html?m=1

And in BG2 we had Jan Jansen making jokes every sentence about turnips. Also impeding fatal doom isn't really a problem here, many people with fatal diseases use humour to cope with stress.

Except he is a tribal from a medieval enviourment and Boo isn't a magical, planar or spirit hamster. Boo is a SPACE hamster. The immersion-breaking comes from the fact that a rashemi tribal has a delusion about something that is outside of his character scope. If he was a spelljammer captain it would make sense, but he isn't.

I don't think it's off topic. The lack of direction is also why BG3 lacks immersion compared to 20 year old games.

It's probably a younger dev team who were influenced more by MMO's than BG, IWD or NWN. I remember Swen saying in an early dev video that half of the dev team didn't even know what BG was. That's probably why we have the theme park design, repetitive high ground combat and teleport systems that don't make sense in the game world. There seems to be a lack of understanding what it takes to create an immersive world, or a principle that gameplay comes first and has to have A, B and C to be a "good video game".

I think there's a clash between these video game tropes in gameplay and powerful immersive storytelling in an RPG. Would be interesting to hear RPG game devs talk about that. Previous D&D CRPGs or spiritual successors like Pillars of Eternity did not have theme park maps, teleport systems or surface spam / high ground race for combat and they were great. Why does Larian feel like we need all that?

I really have the same feeling as OP.

In my opinion some gameplay mechanics, some visual effects, some story elements and the world design does not work well together.

It looks like different developpers did not harmonize their job to create something coherent.

It does not prevent to have funny/silly characters like some were in BG1/2 or a few obvious references to the fact it's video games... But in the old games the mechanics, the world design, the story and the visual effects worked well together.

In BG3 combats look like a silly parenthesis in the adventure (way less than before).
The map design create wierd situation in the story or the coherence of the world. Many visual effects or animations are shouting "video game" way more than necessary...

It's probably gonna be one of my biggest dissapointment in the end. I'll deal with it because the game has many good things to offer but I really hate this.

In my opinion the best games of all time have to be coherent. BG3 is not at all.

It's funny because Minsc and his space hamster is going to be part of BG3.

It depends on how they will write it.

Will it be a brave and goodhearted Rashemi warrior with a sad undertone who was mentally handicapped by a blow to the head causing delusions. Or will it be a heroic warrior with an animal companion who turns out to be an actual extraplanar shapeshifter creature who eats mind flayers for breakfast which is revealed in an epic cinematic.

Mature vs. juvenile. Real vs. cartoon. Timeless masterpiece vs. fast food entertainment that relies on cheap shock value. Larian will be measured.

Read the topic title again, and come back. IF it had been limited to that, I'd probably have not posted here. However, how they talk has been an issue brought up repeatedly, more than a couple of times, and is completely optional. I love that the logic you try to bring to bear here applies perfectly to what I said, when one doesn't try to ignore the premise of the thread. Let's not pretend that one would miss anything game breaking if they don't talk to the squirrels. Since there are no story beats tied to them, based entirely on my own experience, where I haven't talked to any squirrels, and the lack of any links to story beats they directly influence, then talking to them is optional, which is what I said. So the basic premise of the thread is "remove this optional conversation, because I don't like it, since we can decapitate someone".

I do a lot of things in RPGs that are optional. Trying to clear all of the fog of war on maps, peeking in every corner, looting all the chests I can find and open, etc. None of that is required, but I sure don't want it removed because someone else thinks that the only way the game would work is if all paths led to the next main quest objective. I referenced Alfira's song earlier, which is, I believe, where the "Disney squirrels" are. What main plot lines am I going to miss if I miss triggering that event? None, but I'll miss out on the music video. There's a side quest tied to the Harpies that I missed my first run. I didn't even know the Harpies were there until my second run. There's a lot of "I don't like this, because immersion" floating around, but when it's something like "I cast talk to animals, and the squirrels were silly", what's one supposed to think? Are squirrels really serious in real life or something? I've never actually had a conversation with one, so enlighten me.

Much ado is being made about Boo, leaving me with the idea that some people believe that the only way someone could think "giant miniature space hamster" is if they were in a certain realm, someone actually said that in this thread. So no other realms have space, or content from space? Is planar/dimension hopping not possible in the FR? I guess the whole premise of the prologue is busted then, right? It's not like Minsc could just be a bit touched in the head, despite the fact that he is very much presented as such. So that translates to "crazy people in a game break my immersion"...


As will the critiques. There are "review" sites that aren't worth their weight in crap, after all. A review that goes on and on about talking squirrels will be taken at face value. For example, I despise Steam reviews and Meta-Critic. The former is easily manipulated, with 0 consequence, review bombs of the OG Skyrim because of the Creation Club, for example, when you can't even use the Creation Club if you only have the OG release of Skyrim. 0 of 10 and 10 of 10 reviews on games before anyone could have actually played it, along with not requiring one actually own the game in the latter's case. So just because someone is critical doesn't mean they're right. See the fuss raised about Minsc and Boo for an example.

Coming back to the comedy of older bg games, I wonder how some people justify Jaheira breaking the fourth wall in her sentences.

I found it hilarious. Along with one of the voices in DA Origins, that said "Shall I get you a ladder, so you can get off my back", or something similar...

I don’t mind humor in a dark world at all. An example of well integrated humor was Sten in DAO…the cookie scene and the “are you a woman” scene. They were perfectly in character for him and did not break immersion, but were really funny.

The OP is not talking about humor. They are not
talking about characters with funny tics like Minsc. They are talking about complete tonal shifts and a mish mash of ideas that break immersion. I personally agree that the game suffers from this.

However, I have accepted it and moved on tbh. This game will never be anywhere near as special or memorable to me as others rpgs and I think this is one of the main reasons. Lack of cohesive tone and writing. However, That does not stop my enjoying it in a different way than I enjoy more masterfully written games. I just consider it goofy fun!

Also…it is so tedious to see the strawman arguments of “just skip it if u don’t like it”. I personally despise metagaming in an rpg. It is the number one thing that breaks immersion for me.

It so often seems like two camps. Camp one likes immersion in the sense that an rpg should feel natural and logical in and of itself with the ability to sink into a character and make choices based on that character’s traits…not based on beating the game or getting the most loot. Camp two cares less about immersion and instead wants tons of content, easter eggs, varied characters to interact with, etc. These are both TOTALLY fine, but it is annoying when folks from camp two willfully ignore what the folks from camp one are saying.

I (the player) can ignore the squirrels. My character, who knows NOTHING about the druid grove because he has never been there before, might very well try out his new magic ring by talking to the squirrels. When that happens, I (the player) roll my eyes and think “wow…there were too many cooks in the kitchen when this game was written”. I think that is what the OP is saying, and I get it. Stuff like that is immersion breaking.

I again point out that this is not a deabreaker for me…I can do camp one or camp two type games depending on my mood. But my all-time favorite games def come from the camp one way of thinking. It is a wee bit disappointing that BG3 is instead more of a “silly fun”game…but then again, those games are just fine.

Are people genuinely trying to compare the humor of Baldur's Gate and/or Baldur's Gate 2 to that of Larian's zanier attempt? Holy cow.


As usual, the best case scenario (as is the case with long-removed sequels trying to recapture old magic) is "It's a decent/good game/film/book/et cetera, but a poor (insert-franchise-here) game/film/book/et cetera."

Yes, because humour in Bg and Bg2 for me was cringy and off-puting.

It's not funny tics when the whole personality of Minsc is based around being dumb and having a space hamaster. And Jan Jansen is 95% turnips and 5% sad love story.

Timebean, that's really well put. As someone solidly in camp 2, that was eye-opening for me.

If the varied tones in this game creates a break in immersion, I can only imagine how surreal and painful real life must be, what with all the different flavors and attitudes, the ups, the downs, the clashes of colors and feelings, when you're at a funeral one moment and the next they have the gall to play a goofy comedy on the television screen. It must all seem downright phony, like the crappiest of crappy writing, am I right?

Well, yes. Media (be it book, film or a game) aren't and should be 1:1 representations of reality. That's writing 101. Filtering things that detract or don't contribute to the story you are telling are ammong essencial skill, no matter what you create. You craft world and story - and with that comes careful curation of what you put in it.

Now, is BG3 trying to intentionally contrast dark and funny? No, I don't think so. Tone variation in BG3 doesn't complement individual bits, it conflicts with each other. Not everything, not always, but often enough to be distracting to make it difficult for me to care about characters, their fate or implications of the decisions my character makes.

That I think is summarising pretty well why some of us don't see eye to eye.

You wanna know something that's writing 101? Raising the tension... then breaking it before raising it again.

People are spending 100s of hours playing the game. It would be uncomfortable and overwhelming trying to maintain one mood throughout. There's nothing wrong with humorous, lighthearted moments. In fact, those scenes are necessary.

Now, you may not think it's funny. But that's a different argument. That's a matter of subjective taste, not a matter of "writing skill."

They are. The Larian generation is fixated with Minsc/Tiax/Dradeel/JanJansen when they clearly had a well justified, integrated and circumscribed role in the game. Maybe the originals Fallout humor was also off-putting, immersion-breaker and made it a incoherent game. There is little point arguing.

As a side note, I think Larian did a good job on the Globins, which are more in keep with their expertise.

Agree. PoE1 suffered from the lack of tonal variation.

Sure, real life is varied and in the grand scheme of life, everything goes. But an example … I work on a college campus in real life. A place where, when I am there, I expect active debates, studying, quiet libraries, student filled coffee shops, labs churning out stressed out grads and papers…ya know…academic shite. If I went to work and all of the sudden the campus is filled with amusement park rides, fireworks, kids running around with balloons, stuffed animals lining the corridor, etc? Well…I would wonder what the hell was going on and how on earth I could take my scholarly pursuits seriously in such an environment.

That is the best comparison I can make.

Now is academia humorless? Hell no. There are hilarious people and silly stuff all the time. It is mot all serious professors and dour students and sacred texts. Ie, there are for sure tonal variations and random silliness. But it is not an amusement park, and kids screaming on roller coasters and clowns juggling fire are simply out of place.

One moment on campus, someone is telling a corny joke. Nearby, a couple walks arm-in-arm, head on shoulder. Next, there's a tragedy and cell phones are pinging with the message, "Run, Hide, Fight."

Clearly, a lot of shifting feelings are happening on campus, all around. Someone is high and laughing. Someone is frantic and stressed out. Someone is falling in love. Someone was recently abused.

But let's tackle this from another angle.

Things are one way while the characters are in the grove. (This can substitute for the campus in your example.)

Things are another way while the characters are in the goblin fortress. (This can substitute for the amusement park.)

See what I mean? How each of those places has a different feel, although each place also has shifts within, as well, and as should be expected.

And I just realized we will probably be able to talk to Boo


Just to throw it out there - I wonder if BG3s humor annoys me because in what way it involves the player. You know, how Geralt runs into some really silly gags, but he himself never breaks the character.

Difficult for me to form an argument, but will keep it in mind next time I find the thing that annoys me. Usually, if something bothers me, it's my PC doing something without me intending. Speaking of which: thank goodness for better PC expressions.

Yikes. I hadn't thought of that at all yet.

This is a matter of degrees: one of them (i.e., the original saga) is a firecracker and the other (i.e., Larian's project) is a main-sequence star. Also, I don't relish saying this, but, the writing/pacing in the Baldur's Gate series was head and shoulders above everything Larian has produced thus far; I never walked away from either title (or their expansions) feeling that the experience was generally goofy.

Humor has always been subjective. I am an older gamer and for me the talking squirrels are less fourth wall- breaking than a bandit making a wood and caverns "wink, wink" joke. Or the npc comments you get when you click on them. Playing the saga back then, not everyone was a Minsc & Boo fan either. It just that also with less games on the market and in general the gaming community being smaller, I'd say the expectations were less too.

Ironic that you mention Fallout here, because Larian writing is very close to Fallout 2. Fallout 2 world was zany and whimsical, it was literally a parody with dark undertones that's why silly jokes worked there. Same with BG3. That's why these worlds are immersive, while BG 1 and 2 felt extremely cringy with all the out of place stuff you encountered.

Zany and whimsical are not necessarily the benchmarks of an immersive game. What's immersive about a game world without a day/night cycle and no weather? Where there is no true means o measure time even though the main quest is literally a race against time? Where the map is like a railroaded theme park with everything a short walk away? Where magical way portals are liberally scattered around and yet nobody else in the game world seems to use? It's all so incoherent.

I think that is a good comparison - Fallout1 had well balanced tone for the most part with most (not all!) humour still supporting the story. Fallout2 definitely lost balance and got drowned in silly references. That’s what I remember of it at least, didn’t replay it nearly as much as Fallout1.

Fallout1>fallout2

I agree on the time issue in BG3, but not that the case is so clear cut as you make it. Some game mechanics are better in the original BG (e.g. time flow), some are worse (e.g. character reactivity or plot flexibility). For example, a big immersion-breaking moments for me was in BG2, when I've realized npcs didn't react to my werewolf-shifted druid. And another one was when my character got killed by Arkanis Gath, simply because I've made a choice which apparently wasn't approved by the writers.

Gosh. Fallout's writing and world-building is the complete opposite of Larian's. Whenever there is humor (parody/criticism) in Fallout, there is tragedy/depression/sadness (FO2 and FNV included). Meanwhile, Larian's games are just pure silliness. Again, completely different prevailing tones.

BG3 dark undertones? Like the Aunt May Rag? The car salesman Raphael? The whining jester vampire spawn? The dumb wizard companion that always states the obvious? The party of tadpoles? Or the skeleton puppy that conveniently ressurects all and travels with you through dungeons? I cannot think of a more unimmersive game in CRPG history. Oh wait, DOS2 was worse.

Like Mol, a sociopathic thiefling child who literally sends other kids on suicide missions just to steal stuff, she and her followers will grow up to be hardcore criminals and helping refugees means she will reach Baldur's Gates and will become part of the criminal underground there. Like Wyll, who wants to be a hero simply because of his own pride but will torture an innocent prisoner to fulfill his own selfish goals. Like gnome slaves in Grymforge who are actually terrorists who want to blow up Baldur's Gates to further their political agenda.


Ironic that's it coming from a person with jon irenicus avatar, a one-dimensional Bond-style evil scientist, who's only motivations are unlimited powah and revenge. At least Sarevok was presented in a way that made him look actually smart with his Baldur's Gates machinations and the way he manipulated the PC and people around him. Irenicus is supposed to be smart simply because he has evil labs to do his evil magical science, yet he has a personality of an edgy teenager.

I have to disagree on the Irenicus part. I do think his character is quite stereotypical , perhaps even cliché in the fantasy genre (just like the 'simple boy discovers he is special and on a world saving mission' is another often used cliché in fantasy) but that doesn't make him a bad character in the story or the writing, because although a cliché, it is well written. I think the issue is not between writing which relies on genre specific tropes and clichés versus writing that is fully aware of the clichés and tropes of the genre and tries to subvert them with irony or pomo meta stuff. Both can have their place and if done well lead to great masterpieces in writing, film or games. Take for instance the lord of the rings books and something like monty pythons holy grail movie, both feature fantasy - sword and sorcery - elements (as well as references to real world/historical things) but while Tolkien went great lengths in creating a believable and serious world (inventing languages and world myths such as in the Simarilion) , monty python does the inverse and subverts some of the things in the genre which have become a commonplace with irony and a lot of 'fourth wall' breaking (e.g. the whole horse riding concept, the anarcho-communist peasant, etc.). I think the issue at hand is thus not if BG3 belongs to one of these categories and which one is the best, for me the issue is that Larian tries to do both at the same time (e.g. the nautiloid intro is def. not trying to subvert fantasy cliché but rather bringing them in all their grandeur vs. the dual wielding salamis) but fails to connect this in a coherent whole. IMO I see two main reasons for this.
First of all the whole story and writing is simply incoherent and full of plot holes as well as deus ex machina solutions in terms of world-crafting (where the fuck is our camp located and why can't we simply walk there ? Our Vampire Spawn needs to be a 'special' one only to be able to exists in-game - in the day that is - lorewise ) and protagonists (what happens when a gith, a follower of Shar, a vampire-spawn dandy, and a Wizzard with a nuke in his chest sit around a campfire sounds more like the intro to a stupid dnd dad-joke than that it sets the stage for an intriguing and credible fantasy plot).

And second, I think Larian should really make a hard choice and stick to it whether they want to write BG3 primarily as a serious fantasy story with some genre subversing and tongue in cheek fourth wall breaking elements or if it wants BG3 to be a modern ironic and comedic subversion of the fantasy genre with some secondary 'serious' elements as anchor points for the story.

Both are viable in my opinion but you can't have both equally present at the same time as it just feels like listening to two different narrators - one an ancient scribe writing a lore conform account of the story from the catacombs of Spellhold, the other a modern day edgy meme-lord that grow up on rick and morty - constantly interrupting each other. So for the moment both those who want seriousness and those who prefer a lighter comedic atmosphere feel annoyed because its unclear as to which 'voice' is the main one and neither is to blame because the game's story fails to position itself as either a serious story with comedic undertones or a comedy with serious undertones. If the writing would be more straightforward in this or better at integrating these two styles and address a lot of the narrative plotholes and internal contradictions people would be less upset about it IMO.

You can literally watch kids die in this game and you went with the weakest and most questionable examples possible. Not that i believe this game stops being campy even when it tries to be dark, but come on. Gale is ten times darker than Wyll, and the goblins are a hundred times creepier than Mol (0,01 x 100 = 1).

There is one thing that comes to mind here:

The song "Stuck in the middle with you" by Stealers Wheel and how it was used in Quentin Tarantinos "Reservoir Dogs".

Classic.

Goblins are just goblins, they are evil, vile, but they just act according to the lore, according to their evil and vile customs and traditions. Mol on the other hand is a tiefling kid who manipulates and coerces other kids to become criminals. And not just orphans, Arabella has loving parents and Mol turned her into a thief and sent to steal the idol. She knew it was dangerous for Arabella, she knew that could cause troudbles for other tieflings, she didn't care. Mol is a classic manipualting sociopath, evil and narcissistic, and she is already creating her own gang by turning gullible kids into criminals. Also how is Gale more dark then Wyll?

This brings up a rather interesting issue here, when discussing "what is dark". What one person may consider "tame", another will find exceedingly offensive. People run on and on about how vulgar the last President of the US was, and yet, from my perspective, he was relatively tame, compared to some of the people that I've run with over the years. In Dragon Age 2, there's a story line where Hawke's mother is killed by a Necromancer, and reanimated. The BSN was flooded with people that were upset that Hawke was upset about that. Some of them acting as if they'd celebrate that in their own lives. So how far down the rabbit hole do they have to go to be "dark"? I find the basic premise to be pretty dark. Even with the plot armor going on, where we may not be on the same schedule others would be in our circumstance, the fact that a parasite is going to completely alter who and what I am is pretty dark.

Striking some kind of balance is going to be needed, because there are some really emotionally fragile people online, and in the world at large. There are people that sincerely believe that some profanity/nudity is oppressing them. There are people that believe that asking for a toggle to "fade to black" on sex scenes is unacceptable censorship too. So where do they strike that balance, because it's evident that nobody is going to be completely happy, no matter what. We're trying to assign objective values to a subjective topic, especially when some of what's being complained about can be skipped entirely, with 0 story consequence, such as talking to the squirrels. It's not vital to the story, and is added precisely because it will break up the seriousness of the overall situation. Even Alfira's song is about the loss of her teacher, to a pack of gnolls. It's a beautiful moment about a tragedy, from her perspective.

Except he isn't well written. Sarevok is, while Irenicus is a cartoon moustache twirling villian. For example, Irenicus is written as a genius, yet his intelligence is presented only by his prowess in magic. Many of his actions and decisions are pretty dumb (from secret underground laboratory in a city where magic is illegal while he has no political clout and it gets invaded by common thieves, he also had full control over PC twice and both times he let the PC slip like a total buffoon, all that while being a genius level wizard) and he relies on plot armor and plot powers to stay relevant. Sarevok on the other hand isn't written as an incredible genius with superpowers, yet we actually feel that he is smart and cunning with the way he manages to scheme and manipulate events on the Sword Coast.

Irenicus feels like he would make more sense as a Sorcerer than a Wizard for sure, though I don't think Sorcerers existed at the time. Someone with untold magical powers and a grudge to match, but who isn't actually a genius or anything like it. Sarevok certainly comes across as much more cunning and less reliant on plot armor.

Also, I like your avatar

I don't know, obviously Irenicus was not nobel prize worthy fiction but I found his part in the story quite convincing and even if he is a bit one dimensional at least he's an actual villain. About his lab underneath the city, never bothered me, I mean the same city that has a crashed planar sphere spaceship in the slums and conspiring vampires running the graveyard district ? Don't see Irenicus as particularly inconsistent, but maybe that's just me, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree then

Kid killed your character or something? Holy shit She's just an orphan, who's probably had it rough judging by her design, in charge of a bunch of orphans, all trying to survive the destruction of their city, and the thing with Arabella is literally just that. Kids trying to apply a simple solution to a complex problem, just so they can save their hides. Druids mean, druids evil, steal their shit and everything will be fine, kinda thing.

As for Gale, the guy has all of Wyll's delusions of grandeur, perhaps even more so, but none of his decency, as attested by the fact that he can be convinced to join the goblins whereas Wyll can't.

You like the irony card, huh?

That is why I believe some people are tone deaf, which is the case for Larian' staff most likely. Tone goes so much beyond writing and only listening to DOS2 and Fallout 2 soundtracks you can tell they have completely different writing and tone styles. All these scenes in BG3 have no emotional undertone, simply because the scenes are poorly directed, infested with bad dialogue and the overall artistic direction is lacking. Even Arabella's outcome feel meaningless, specially when Kagha's writing is so artificial. I will not even comment on Wyll, since he is the most apathetic, generic NPC we have so far.

Irenicus is a brilliant iconic character, not because of his goals, but for his stellar voice acting and solid dialogues (plus his initial dungeon which provides plenty of background). David Warner elevated the character so much, his lines felt personal and layered. The spellhold for example is masterfully conceived, shows the range of DW's acting and I posted a video some pages back. Many characters across different medias are simple, but the delivery is the most important. And that is what makes the Rag, Raphael, Astarion, Gale, Kagha so unimpressive (and those are the "evil/neutral" characters). They are infested with Disney humor and even good voice actors cannot overcome bad art direction and writing.

It really surprises me someone believes BG3 has good writing for 2021. I guess it is a lost cause, when people see reality in opposite way.

(Towards InnateEagle's comment primarily)

Perhaps, but you watch: we'll get to Baldur's Gate and Mol will have single-handed taken over the underbelly of the city and be running the kids-thieves-urchins-black-market-guild, with a half a dozen huge burly hired help figures that are unswervingly loyal to her.


I know this, because Larian are one-trick ponies when it comes to their story elements.

Hey, if that's the way it goes i'll be the hired help. I like that kid, she's the non-annoying kind of sly.

JonBon is remembered for that because there is nothing more to his character. His voice acting is great and his megalomaniac rants amusing, but he doesn't bring anything more interesting to the table. Not even an engaging conversation, as you can have with e.g. Kerghan.

There was also the "race twist"; I found that to be kind of cool.